Hagel says Iraq War Looking Like Vietnam

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Click me!

This can't be. He surely isn't going against Bush when he needs him the most, as polls slip further and further and especially at the start of the "Drum up support for the Iraq War 5 day tour".

Is he calling it like he sees it and waking up to the truth? Or, is he using it for 2006 election purposes?

I'm sure the PNAC GOP members can't stand this kind of non support for King Bush. *bah*

A war built on lies and moving targets, and ends up getting nothing but nearly 2,000 soldiers killed, hundreds of billions of extra debt. and a disfunctional Iraq on the virge of a theocratic constitution. Wonderful! :roll:

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
Sun Aug 21,12:48 PM ET



WASHINGTON - A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

ADVERTISEMENT

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.

Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning," he said.

President Bush was preparing for separate speeches this week to reaffirm his plan to help Iraq train its security forces while its leaders build a democratic government. In his weekly Saturday radio address, Bush said the fighting there protected Americans at home.

Polls show the public growing more skeptical about Bush's handling of the war.

In Iraq, officials continued to craft a new constitution in the face of a Monday night deadline for parliamentary approval. They missed the initial deadline last week.

Other Republican senators appearing on Sunday news shows advocated remaining in Iraq until the mission set by Bush is completed, but they also noted that the public is becoming more and more concerned and needs to be reassured.

Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., another possible candidate for president in 2008, disagreed that the U.S. is losing in Iraq. He said a constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms would provide a rallying point for Iraqis.

"I think this is a very crucial time for the future of Iraq," said Allen, also on ABC. "The terrorists don't have anything to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. All they care to do is disrupt."

Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today.

"We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," Hagel said. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have."

Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese who fought the U.S., the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing.

"What I think the White House does not yet understand ? and some of my colleagues ? the dam has broke on this policy," Hagel said. "The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together."

The Army's top general, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, said Saturday in an interview with The Associated Press that the Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq ? well over 100,000 ? for four more years as part of preparations for a worst-case scenario.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), a South Carolina Republican, said U.S. security is tied to success in Iraq, and he counseled people to be patient.

"The worst-case scenario is not staying four years. The worst-case scenario is leaving a dysfunctional, repressive government behind that becomes part of the problem in the war on terror and not the solution," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday.

Allen said the military would be strained at such levels in four years yet could handle that difficult assignment. Hagel described the Army contingency plan as "complete folly."

"I don't know where he's going to get these troops," Hagel said. "There won't be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years."

Hagel added: "It would bog us down, it would further destabilize the Middle East, it would give Iran more influence, it would hurt Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won't be four years. We need to be out."

Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., said the U.S. is winning in Iraq but has "a way to go" before it meets its goals there. Meanwhile, more needs to be done to lay out the strategy, Lott said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I do think we, the president, all of us need to do a better job, do more," Lott said, by telling people "why we have made this commitment, what is being done now, what we do expect in the process and, yes, why it's going to take more time."
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
The Republicans will do anything they can think of to divert attention from their Lies and deceit and failed phoney war, including giving a false look of eating their own.

They are masters of making BS look good and work, I have to give them credit.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Pablo
See sig...

This Repub seems like one I might be able to vote for... (if his immigration scorecard wasn't so horrible.)

What took him so long to come forward??? He have an ephiphany suddenly? Oh, running for Prez in '08.

Sorry, actions speak louder then words....especially when the words come WAY TOO LATE. Can you say opportunist??
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,918
6,570
126
There are huge differences between Nam and Iraq. One is a desert and the other jungle. One has people that are oriental. There's lots of water in Nam. They speak different languages, huge differences. This guy is a traitor.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
Click me!

This can't be. He surely isn't going against Bush when he needs him the most, as polls slip further and further and especially at the start of the "Drum up support for the Iraq War 5 day tour".

Is he calling it like he sees it and waking up to the truth? Or, is he using it for 2006 election purposes?

I'm sure the PNAC GOP members can't stand this kind of non support for King Bush. *bah*

A war built on lies and moving targets, and ends up getting nothing but nearly 2,000 soldiers killed, hundreds of billions of extra debt. and a disfunctional Iraq on the virge of a theocratic constitution. Wonderful! :roll:

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
Sun Aug 21,12:48 PM ET



WASHINGTON - A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

ADVERTISEMENT

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.

Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning," he said.

President Bush was preparing for separate speeches this week to reaffirm his plan to help Iraq train its security forces while its leaders build a democratic government. In his weekly Saturday radio address, Bush said the fighting there protected Americans at home.

Polls show the public growing more skeptical about Bush's handling of the war.

In Iraq, officials continued to craft a new constitution in the face of a Monday night deadline for parliamentary approval. They missed the initial deadline last week.

Other Republican senators appearing on Sunday news shows advocated remaining in Iraq until the mission set by Bush is completed, but they also noted that the public is becoming more and more concerned and needs to be reassured.

Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., another possible candidate for president in 2008, disagreed that the U.S. is losing in Iraq. He said a constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms would provide a rallying point for Iraqis.

"I think this is a very crucial time for the future of Iraq," said Allen, also on ABC. "The terrorists don't have anything to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. All they care to do is disrupt."

Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today.

"We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," Hagel said. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have."

Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese who fought the U.S., the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing.

"What I think the White House does not yet understand ? and some of my colleagues ? the dam has broke on this policy," Hagel said. "The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together."

The Army's top general, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, said Saturday in an interview with The Associated Press that the Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq ? well over 100,000 ? for four more years as part of preparations for a worst-case scenario.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), a South Carolina Republican, said U.S. security is tied to success in Iraq, and he counseled people to be patient.

"The worst-case scenario is not staying four years. The worst-case scenario is leaving a dysfunctional, repressive government behind that becomes part of the problem in the war on terror and not the solution," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday.

Allen said the military would be strained at such levels in four years yet could handle that difficult assignment. Hagel described the Army contingency plan as "complete folly."

"I don't know where he's going to get these troops," Hagel said. "There won't be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years."

Hagel added: "It would bog us down, it would further destabilize the Middle East, it would give Iran more influence, it would hurt Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won't be four years. We need to be out."

Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., said the U.S. is winning in Iraq but has "a way to go" before it meets its goals there. Meanwhile, more needs to be done to lay out the strategy, Lott said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I do think we, the president, all of us need to do a better job, do more," Lott said, by telling people "why we have made this commitment, what is being done now, what we do expect in the process and, yes, why it's going to take more time."

Big difference: Vietnam couldn't and didn't threaten the freedom of the world directly. They didn't attack outside SEA.

 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The Republicans will do anything they can think of to divert attention from their Lies and deceit and failed phoney war, including giving a false look of eating their own.

They are masters of making BS look good and work, I have to give them credit.


Naw, he is just a turncoat Republican. You give us too much credit! Must be that superstitious paranoia crashing in again.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There are huge differences between Nam and Iraq. One is a desert and the other jungle. One has people that are oriental. There's lots of water in Nam. They speak different languages, huge differences. This guy is a traitor.

My point exactly!!

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Engineer
Click me!

This can't be. He surely isn't going against Bush when he needs him the most, as polls slip further and further and especially at the start of the "Drum up support for the Iraq War 5 day tour".

Is he calling it like he sees it and waking up to the truth? Or, is he using it for 2006 election purposes?

I'm sure the PNAC GOP members can't stand this kind of non support for King Bush. *bah*

A war built on lies and moving targets, and ends up getting nothing but nearly 2,000 soldiers killed, hundreds of billions of extra debt. and a disfunctional Iraq on the virge of a theocratic constitution. Wonderful! :roll:

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
Sun Aug 21,12:48 PM ET



WASHINGTON - A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

ADVERTISEMENT

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.

Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning," he said.

President Bush was preparing for separate speeches this week to reaffirm his plan to help Iraq train its security forces while its leaders build a democratic government. In his weekly Saturday radio address, Bush said the fighting there protected Americans at home.

Polls show the public growing more skeptical about Bush's handling of the war.

In Iraq, officials continued to craft a new constitution in the face of a Monday night deadline for parliamentary approval. They missed the initial deadline last week.

Other Republican senators appearing on Sunday news shows advocated remaining in Iraq until the mission set by Bush is completed, but they also noted that the public is becoming more and more concerned and needs to be reassured.

Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., another possible candidate for president in 2008, disagreed that the U.S. is losing in Iraq. He said a constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms would provide a rallying point for Iraqis.

"I think this is a very crucial time for the future of Iraq," said Allen, also on ABC. "The terrorists don't have anything to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. All they care to do is disrupt."

Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today.

"We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," Hagel said. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have."

Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese who fought the U.S., the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing.

"What I think the White House does not yet understand ? and some of my colleagues ? the dam has broke on this policy," Hagel said. "The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together."

The Army's top general, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, said Saturday in an interview with The Associated Press that the Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq ? well over 100,000 ? for four more years as part of preparations for a worst-case scenario.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), a South Carolina Republican, said U.S. security is tied to success in Iraq, and he counseled people to be patient.

"The worst-case scenario is not staying four years. The worst-case scenario is leaving a dysfunctional, repressive government behind that becomes part of the problem in the war on terror and not the solution," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday.

Allen said the military would be strained at such levels in four years yet could handle that difficult assignment. Hagel described the Army contingency plan as "complete folly."

"I don't know where he's going to get these troops," Hagel said. "There won't be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years."

Hagel added: "It would bog us down, it would further destabilize the Middle East, it would give Iran more influence, it would hurt Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won't be four years. We need to be out."

Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., said the U.S. is winning in Iraq but has "a way to go" before it meets its goals there. Meanwhile, more needs to be done to lay out the strategy, Lott said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I do think we, the president, all of us need to do a better job, do more," Lott said, by telling people "why we have made this commitment, what is being done now, what we do expect in the process and, yes, why it's going to take more time."

Big difference: Vietnam couldn't and didn't threaten the freedom of the world directly. They didn't attack outside SEA.

Iraq didnt either, but we went in fighting VN fully expecting the Communists to be a direct threat to the US when SE Asia fell like dominoes.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Engineer
Click me!

This can't be. He surely isn't going against Bush when he needs him the most, as polls slip further and further and especially at the start of the "Drum up support for the Iraq War 5 day tour".

Is he calling it like he sees it and waking up to the truth? Or, is he using it for 2006 election purposes?

I'm sure the PNAC GOP members can't stand this kind of non support for King Bush. *bah*

A war built on lies and moving targets, and ends up getting nothing but nearly 2,000 soldiers killed, hundreds of billions of extra debt. and a disfunctional Iraq on the virge of a theocratic constitution. Wonderful! :roll:

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
Sun Aug 21,12:48 PM ET



WASHINGTON - A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

ADVERTISEMENT

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.

Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning," he said.

President Bush was preparing for separate speeches this week to reaffirm his plan to help Iraq train its security forces while its leaders build a democratic government. In his weekly Saturday radio address, Bush said the fighting there protected Americans at home.

Polls show the public growing more skeptical about Bush's handling of the war.

In Iraq, officials continued to craft a new constitution in the face of a Monday night deadline for parliamentary approval. They missed the initial deadline last week.

Other Republican senators appearing on Sunday news shows advocated remaining in Iraq until the mission set by Bush is completed, but they also noted that the public is becoming more and more concerned and needs to be reassured.

Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., another possible candidate for president in 2008, disagreed that the U.S. is losing in Iraq. He said a constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms would provide a rallying point for Iraqis.

"I think this is a very crucial time for the future of Iraq," said Allen, also on ABC. "The terrorists don't have anything to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. All they care to do is disrupt."

Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today.

"We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," Hagel said. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have."

Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese who fought the U.S., the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing.

"What I think the White House does not yet understand ? and some of my colleagues ? the dam has broke on this policy," Hagel said. "The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together."

The Army's top general, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, said Saturday in an interview with The Associated Press that the Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq ? well over 100,000 ? for four more years as part of preparations for a worst-case scenario.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), a South Carolina Republican, said U.S. security is tied to success in Iraq, and he counseled people to be patient.

"The worst-case scenario is not staying four years. The worst-case scenario is leaving a dysfunctional, repressive government behind that becomes part of the problem in the war on terror and not the solution," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday.

Allen said the military would be strained at such levels in four years yet could handle that difficult assignment. Hagel described the Army contingency plan as "complete folly."

"I don't know where he's going to get these troops," Hagel said. "There won't be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years."

Hagel added: "It would bog us down, it would further destabilize the Middle East, it would give Iran more influence, it would hurt Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won't be four years. We need to be out."

Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., said the U.S. is winning in Iraq but has "a way to go" before it meets its goals there. Meanwhile, more needs to be done to lay out the strategy, Lott said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I do think we, the president, all of us need to do a better job, do more," Lott said, by telling people "why we have made this commitment, what is being done now, what we do expect in the process and, yes, why it's going to take more time."

Big difference: Vietnam couldn't and didn't threaten the freedom of the world directly. They didn't attack outside SEA.

Iraq didnt either, but we went in fighting VN fully expecting the Communists to be a direct threat to the US when SE Asia fell like dominoes.

SEA fell like dominoes when liberals in the US forced our desertion of our allies resulting in 4.2 million deaqths in Cambodia and uncounted millions in South Vietnam.

 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Pablo
See sig...

This Repub seems like one I might be able to vote for... (if his immigration scorecard wasn't so horrible.)

Love traitors, do you?

Nope. I voted Kerry in '04.

You voted for one!

:cookie: May it give you strength to enlist in your man-god's wars of strength and aggression.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Pablo
See sig...

This Repub seems like one I might be able to vote for... (if his immigration scorecard wasn't so horrible.)

Love traitors, do you?

Nope. I voted Kerry in '04.

You voted for one!

:cookie: May it give you strength to enlist in your man-god's wars of strength and aggression.

Sorry, chief. I just finished 33 years of just that! Where you been?

 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Pablo
See sig...

This Repub seems like one I might be able to vote for... (if his immigration scorecard wasn't so horrible.)

Love traitors, do you?

Nope. I voted Kerry in '04.

You voted for one!

:cookie: May it give you strength to enlist in your man-god's wars of strength and aggression.

Sorry, chief. I just finished 33 years of just that! Where you been?

Going to school, voting Democrat, enjoying life.

My god, 33 years. No wonder you think the only way is the sword. My wife's uncle is the same way after 35 years in the service.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Pablo
See sig...

This Repub seems like one I might be able to vote for... (if his immigration scorecard wasn't so horrible.)

Love traitors, do you?

Nope. I voted Kerry in '04.

You voted for one!

:cookie: May it give you strength to enlist in your man-god's wars of strength and aggression.

Sorry, chief. I just finished 33 years of just that! Where you been?

Going to school, voting Democrat, enjoying life.

My god, 33 years. No wonder you think the only way is the sword. My wife's uncle is the same way after 35 years in the service.

You should learn to listen. It would spare you a lot of painful learning by experience. The sword got us to where we are today, not the lace cuff.

 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Pablo
See sig...

This Repub seems like one I might be able to vote for... (if his immigration scorecard wasn't so horrible.)

Love traitors, do you?

Nope. I voted Kerry in '04.

You voted for one!

:cookie: May it give you strength to enlist in your man-god's wars of strength and aggression.

Sorry, chief. I just finished 33 years of just that! Where you been?

Going to school, voting Democrat, enjoying life.

My god, 33 years. No wonder you think the only way is the sword. My wife's uncle is the same way after 35 years in the service.

You should learn to listen. It would spare you a lot of painful learning by experience. The sword got us to where we are today, not the lace cuff.

Actually, I think science, an well-educated workforce, Unions, and a relatively non-restrictive business environment got us where we are today. I don't see Vietnam, Korea, or Gulf War I as responsible for any positives in the last 50 years. Too bad people like Dubya, Ronnie Raygun, and Ted Kennedy, among others are helping to throw it all away.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Pablo
See sig...

This Repub seems like one I might be able to vote for... (if his immigration scorecard wasn't so horrible.)

Love traitors, do you?

Nope. I voted Kerry in '04.

You voted for one!

:cookie: May it give you strength to enlist in your man-god's wars of strength and aggression.

Sorry, chief. I just finished 33 years of just that! Where you been?

Going to school, voting Democrat, enjoying life.

My god, 33 years. No wonder you think the only way is the sword. My wife's uncle is the same way after 35 years in the service.

You should learn to listen. It would spare you a lot of painful learning by experience. The sword got us to where we are today, not the lace cuff.

Actually, I think science, an well-educated workforce, Unions, and a relatively non-restrictive business environment got us where we are today. I don't see Vietnam, Korea, or Gulf War I as responsible for any positives in the last 50 years. Too bad people like Dubya, Ronnie Raygun, and Ted Kennedy, among others are helping to throw it all away.

So how do you justify the liberal shut down of the space program so the funds could be diverted to social objectives?

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,918
6,570
126
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There are huge differences between Nam and Iraq. One is a desert and the other jungle. One has people that are oriental. There's lots of water in Nam. They speak different languages, huge differences. This guy is a traitor.

My point exactly!!
I know, that is why I made it, lots of irrelevant differences.

 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
How has the war in Iraq destabilized the middle east? We are not fighting anyone at the present. We are just basically doing peace keeping duties. If anything it is the middle east that is attempting to destablilize Iraq, not vice-versa. The militants in the middle-east are just trying to demonstrate what they stand for is violence and murder against democracy. They will not be happy until they enslave the world and make your mother, sister, and daughter wear a burka and shrink in Fear.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Originally posted by: piasabird
How has the war in Iraq destabilized the middle east? We are not fighting anyone at the present. We are just basically doing peace keeping duties. If anything it is the middle east that is attempting to destablilize Iraq, not vice-versa. The militants in the middle-east are just trying to demonstrate what they stand for is violence and murder against democracy. They will not be happy until they enslave the world and make your mother, sister, and daughter wear a burka and shrink in Fear.

So there are militants in Iraq blowing up the Iraqis now, but not before.

The US created the conditions whereby this happened. I bet if someone threw their kid in front of a moving train you would say they didn' run it over. You would literally be correct. They were responsible for the outcome anyway. Peacekeeping? You start a shooting war, occupy a country and you are just la-di-da peacekeepers? Right.

The hyperbole about the radicals wanting everyone to wear burkas etc is just that. The only one who can take away our freedoms is ourselves. Some two bit thugs are going to dictate how you dress? In what universe? Suppose you tell us how that could practically come about?

Nonsense.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,918
6,570
126
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: piasabird
How has the war in Iraq destabilized the middle east? We are not fighting anyone at the present. We are just basically doing peace keeping duties. If anything it is the middle east that is attempting to destablilize Iraq, not vice-versa. The militants in the middle-east are just trying to demonstrate what they stand for is violence and murder against democracy. They will not be happy until they enslave the world and make your mother, sister, and daughter wear a burka and shrink in Fear.

So there are militants in Iraq blowing up the Iraqis now, but not before.

The US created the conditions whereby this happened. I bet if someone threw their kid in front of a moving train you would say they didn' run it over. You would literally be correct. They were responsible for the outcome anyway. Peacekeeping? You start a shooting war, occupy a country and you are just la-di-da peacekeepers? Right.

The hyperbole about the radicals wanting everyone to wear burkas etc is just that. The only one who can take away our freedoms is ourselves. Some two bit thugs are going to dictate how you dress? In what universe? Suppose you tell us how that could practically come about?

Nonsense.

If you are going to kill people you need to justify it morally. Therefore those we kill are evil. I think I got that right. Anyway it is something like that.